Interview With Charles Freeman by Robert Dreyfuss

[Jefferson23]

03/13/2009 @ 5:00pm

Since February 26, I've written several times (here, here, here, and here) about the battle over the nomination of Charles W. ("Chas") Freeman as chairman of the National Intelligence Committee. On Tuesday, he withdrew his name from consideration after what I called a "thunderous, coordinated assault" against him by the Israel lobby and its neoconservative allies.

On Friday, three days after he withdrew -- in the midst of a media storm, including front page stories in the New York Times and the Washington Post -- Freeman and I spoke in an exclusive interview for The Nation. Here is the unedited transcript:

Q. When were you first approached by Admiral Dennis Blair, the director of national intelligence? A. It was in early to mid-December. My initial reaction was that I was reluctant to go back to the government at all. And then my reaction was about, as I've been quoted saying, giving up my freedom, my leisure, most of my income, undergoing a mental colonoscopy, and resuming a daily commute to a job with long hours and a ration of political abuse.

Q. So when did you accept the position? A. Probably late January. It took me five, six weeks to overcome common sense and agree to do it.

interview in full here: http://www.thenation.com/blogs/dreyfuss/417420?rel=hp_picks

[oberliner]

1. "The Lieberman Lobby"

I wonder if that will stick.

[Truth2Tell]

2. The Lieberman Lobby.

Quite so, from the interview:

The only thing I regret is that in my statement I embraced the term ‘Israel lobby.' This isn't really a lobby by, for or about Israel. It's really, well, I've decided I'm going to call it from now on the Lieberman lobby. It's the very right-wing Likud in Israel and its fanatic supporters here. And Avigdor Lieberman is really the guy that they really agree with. And I think they're doing Israel in.

[bemildred]

3. Thanks, that was interesting. nt

[Idealism]

4. Interesting man, a shame he isn't allowed to serve.

[bemildred]

5. 'Likud lobby' stifling debate, says diplomat

The senior diplomat who withdrew as one of Barack Obama's top intelligence officials in a row over Israel has stepped up his attack on those he says are stifling debate in the United States, adding that he was "deeply insulted" to be accused of antisemitism for criticising what he described as "the Israel lobby".

Chas Freeman, a former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia, told CNN that organisations representing the right wing of Israeli politics had "a hammer lock on both public discussion and policy", and that their campaign to force his withdrawal as the chair of Obama's national intelligence council had been intended to "reinforce the taboo against any critical discussion of Israeli policies".

Freeman also reiterated his view that American policy on Israel had contributed to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, part of a litany that prompted several members of Congress to speak out against his appointment. The US was "paying a price" for its Middle Eastern policies, he said, "because our actions have catalysed - perhaps not caused, but catalysed - a radicalisation of Arab and Muslim politics that facilitates the activities of terrorists with global reach, like those who struck us on 9/11."

His opponents "should probably be called the Likud lobby" rather than the Israel lobby, he added. "The atmosphere is such in this country now that, whereas Israelis in Israel routinely criticise Israeli policies that they think may prove to be suicidal for their country, those who criticise the same policies here, for the same reasons, are subject to political reprisal."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/mar/16/chas-freeman-intelligence-israel

[Jefferson23]

6. I wonder who will be up next for consideration and thanks for adding to this thread.

"Freeman also reiterated his view that American policy on Israel had contributed to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, part of a litany that prompted several members of Congress to speak out against his appointment. The US was "paying a price" for its Middle Eastern policies, he said, "because our actions have catalysed - perhaps not caused, but catalysed - a radicalisation of Arab and Muslim politics that facilitates the activities of terrorists with global reach, like those who struck us on 9/11."

Is this suppose to be another one of his hating on Israel moments?

I guess the 9/11 Report was hating on Israel too, which had the same conclusion, Chapter 2:

"BIN LADIN'S APPEAL IN THE ISLAMIC WORLD

It is the story of eccentric and violent ideas sprouting in the fertile ground of political and social turmoil. It is the story of an organization poised to seize its historical moment. How did Bin Ladin-with his call for the indiscriminate killing of Americans-win thousands of followers and some degree of approval from millions more?

The history, culture, and body of beliefs from which Bin Ladin has shaped and spread his message are largely unknown to many Americans. Seizing on symbols of Islam's past greatness, he promises to restore pride to people who consider themselves the victims of successive foreign masters. He uses cultural and religious allusions to the holy Qur'an and some of its interpreters. He appeals to people disoriented by cyclonic change as they confront modernity and globalization. His rhetoric selectively draws from multiple sources-Islam, history, and the region's political and economic malaise. He also stresses grievances against the United States widely shared in the Muslim world. He
inveighed against the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, the home of Islam's holiest sites. He spoke of the suffering of the Iraqi people as a result of sanctions imposed after the Gulf War, and he protested U.S. support of Israel.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch2.htm

[bemildred]

7. An interesting question.

No doubt someone less outspoken. I would particularly like to know Blair's attitude, as a result of all this, but I don't expect we will find out.